THE REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION

Science

The process of science starts with an observation.  From this, a hypothesis is made as a general statement about the observation. Experimentation and further observations are made to determine whether the evidence contradict the hypothesis or not.  If not, it stands pending further testing and evidence.  Meanwhile, a logical reason or mechanism is offered to explain why the hypothesis is true.  This is called a theory.  The theory will help mankind to better understand the universe and create useful applications. If minor contradicting evidence is later found, the theory may be modified.  But, if major inconsistencies are found, the theory or the hypothesis. or both, may have to be abandoned.  The longer the theory stands, the closer it is to being an established fact; but it is always subjected to change depending on future evidence.  Scientific facts are defined by their tentative nature.  

Science is guided by two underlying principles: probabilistic induction and falsifiability. Simplistically, probabilistic inductive logic implies that if the same result is repeatedly obtained during experimentation under the same conditions, that result is likely to be a real one.  And, if a scientific hypothesis or theory cannot hitherto been proven wrong; that is, there is a lack of falsification, then it stands. 

Religion

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are borne from absolute and unalterable ideas. Oftentimes, by the nature of the claims made, religious ideas are not amenable to proof or disproof, but consist of bald and permanent statements. It does not need any evidence to back their claims.  If contradicting evidence arise, they can be ignored.  In fact, it is considered laudable to persist in such beliefs in spite of the lack of supportive evidence or in the face of contrary evidence. Such persistence is sometimes encouraged as a sign of strength in religious faith.  

In religion, the guiding principles are that of faith, to ensure belief and adherence; and obedience, lest one risks entailing some kind of penalty, be it bad Karma or a passage to Hell.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, science is the human quest for truth; religions are various efforts to subdue the fears and anxieties of mortality by submitting to the comfort of ready-made doctrines. 

From the foregoing, science and religion seem to be poles apart and it appears difficult to reconcile their differences.  Attempts to heal this apparent conflict culminated in Stephen Jay Gould's idea of NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria).  NOMA divides the magisterium of science which occupies the empirical realm of facts and theory; from the magisterium of religion which provides the answers to the questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria are said to never overlap.

Yet, in everyday life, we know that the concerns of science and religion do intersect but often at a less than friendly angle.  The statement: "God does not exist" is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. As soon as God appears or is proven to exist, that statement will be falsified.  This is the implicit statement of science about God.

Religion's God statement is: "God exists!"  True to form, God's existence cannot be disproved because you cannot prove a negative: that God does not exist.  This statement is therefore not falsifiable and does not qualify as a hypothesis.  

And so, the chasm between science and religion remains.